M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the judgment debtor is directed against the orders dated 10.12.2013 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan made in EA. No. 107 of 2013 in EP. No. 16 of 2011 in OP. No. 42 of 1987.

2. The introductory facts are as follows:-

The respondent herein is the decree holder. Having obtained a decree, which has become final, the decree holder had filed the execution petition for realisation of the decree debt in a sum of more than Rs. 13 lakhs. In the said execution petition the decree holder had sought attachment of movable property of the judgment debtor. While the said execution petition is pending, the judgment debtor had filed E.A. No. 107 of 2013 requesting to dismiss the execution petition on the ground that the decree holder had not filed the execution petition within 12 years i.e., within the time allowed under law for execution of the decree. The said application was dismissed by the Court of execution holding inter alia that the execution petition is filed within the time allowed under law. Therefore, the judgment debtor had filed this civil revision.'

3. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material record.

4. Now the points for determination are:-

1. Whether the Execution Petition was filed beyond the time allowed under law? And if so, whether the same is barred by the law of limitation?

2. Whether judgment debtor/revision petitioner made out valid and sufficient grounds for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the revision?

5. POINTS:

5. (a) The introductory facts are already stated supra. The only point to be considered is as to whether the execution petition filed by the decree holder is barred by the law of limitation.

5. (b) The learned counsel for the judgment debtor had submitted that an execution petition in E.P. No. 60 of 1999 was originally filed by the decree holder and that the same was dismissed for non filing of the sale papers and that thereafter the decree holder had filed another E.P. 29 of 2003 and the same was also dismissed for non payment of process and that thereafter another E.P. 20 of 2007 was filed and that the said EP was also dismissed for not showing the schedule of property and that therefore, the present execution petition in E.P. 16 of 2011, which was filed on 08.05.2011 claiming an amount of Rs. 13 lakhs and odd as due and payable by the judgment debtor, is clearly barred by the law of limitation and that the court of execution had not decided the said question and had failed to give any finding on the aspect of limitation and had thus, erroneously dismissed the execution application filed by the judgment debtor requesting to dismiss the EP as the same was barred by law of limitation.

5. (c) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the decree holder would submit that the execution petition was filed well within time and that the Government, which is in the position of parens patriae, without paying the decree debt is raising an unholy contest and that the order of the court of execution, which is a well reasoned order, is sustainable and that the contention of the judgment debtor that the execution petition is barred by time is baseless and is contrary to the facts and the law.

5. (d) A perusal of the material record would show that the lis arose under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Certain lands in Kotgir and Yadgarpur villages were acquired by the Government for restoration of the large tank of Yadgarpur. The decree holder is one of the claimants in OP. No. 42 of 1987 on the file of the Senior Civil Court at Bodhan. The Land Acquisition Officer/judgment debtor by his award dated 14.08.1984 had awarded compensation @ Rs. 2,000/- per acre for dry land and @ Rs. 2,550/- per acre for dry cum wet lands. The decree holder sought reference to the civil Court. The reference was entertained as OP. No. 42 of 1987 and was di